It's pretty sad when not even near 100% proof is enough to get a conviction.

I'm not even sure video footage of the incident would have gotten one if DNA can't.

What an injustice.

It’s another example of the difference between factual and legal guilt. Cox may have actually done it, but the jury may have decided that the prosecution failed to introduce proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who is on the jury? Seriously, reasonable doubt? The only explanation for this would be that the jury was comprised of small children who still believe in the Stork Theory.

Baby killers and rapists roaming free meanwhile Wesley Snipes gets 3+ years for not filing his taxes and stupid teenagers land on the Registered Sex Offenders list for sending pictures of themselves to their boyfriends or girlfriends.

It's pretty sad when not even near 100% proof is enough to get a conviction.

I'm not even sure video footage of the incident would have gotten one if DNA can't.

What an injustice.

Who is on the jury? Seriously, reasonable doubt? The only explanation for this would be that the jury was comprised of small children who still believe in the Stork Theory.

Baby killers and rapists roaming free meanwhile Wesley Snipes gets 3+ years for not filing his taxes and stupid teenagers land on the Registered Sex Offenders list for sending pictures of themselves to their boyfriends or girlfriends.

Yep, gotta say that I agree with you Hoof. The world has gone stupid with upside down.

So what happened? Mike Klis of the Denver Post explains that testimony from Thomas gave Cox’s lawyer the opening for the one thing that allows the factually guilty to go free in the name of protecting the innocent from being wrongfully convicted: reasonable doubt.

After blurting out a comment from Cox that prompted a failed request from Cox’s lawyer for a mistrial, Thomas offered up something that hurt the prosecutions case, perhaps fatally. Questioned by prosecutors regarding his decision to send multiple text messages to the alleged victim on the day following the alleged incident, Thomas explained that he texted the alleged victim because teammate Cassius Vaughn had told Thomas at practice that he there was some “great ‘girl on girl action’” after Thomas left Cox’s apartment.

Thomas had told police that he left Cox’s apartment after the alleged victim supposedly passed out.

Klis explains that the judge had prohibited any reference to supposed “girl on girl” action under Colorado’s rape shield laws, which are aimed at ensuring that the sexual habits and histories of rape victims won’t become an issue at trial. But the prosecution opened the door, foolishly. (The notion that a lawyer should never ask a question to which the lawyer doesn’t already know the answer became a cliche for a reason.)

I'm not saying I condone what allegedly happened. I'm not saying I believe he's innocent or guilty. I'm not looking at this from anything other than a football perspective.
I don't really know much about this guy at all. Was he a good player? He still seems to be pretty young, is he worth consideration?